Kasama's post on Imperialism, 'the falling rate of profit' and the issue of finance capital

It is the line of MIM (who started this thread) that workers in the U.S. don't produce significant surplus value, and that the main source of surplus value in the world comes from the third world.

They use this false claim as a bogus "theoretical" basis for their even more important false claim: that there is no section of the working class in the U.S. that has any potential to want or lead a revolution.

On Imperialism

I don't agree when RAF says: "Imperialism mearly mean the expansion of one's territory."

Imperialism (in Marxist analysis) is a new stage of capitalism -- it is a new concentrated form of capitalism where the economy is dominated by major monopolies and finance capital. Imperialism is another name for "monopoly capitalism" -- in marxist scientific discussion these two terms are used interchangably.

It was rosa luxemburg (opposed to lenin) who defined imperialism in terms of annexation of land. Lenin explained from several sides why this was not correct (or sufficient). Today we can see even more clearly why this is true:

Imperialism today (and especially U.S. imperialism) mainly operate through the forms of "neo-colonialism" -- meaning that they don't, usually or mainly, ANNEX colonial lands but rule through puppet governments that are nominally "independent."

Imperialism today (and especially U.S. imperialism) does not operate mainly by "expanding their territory." They expand their domination, they expand their penetration of foreign countries, they intensify their degree of exploitation of foreign peoples -- and all of that is very imperialist!

On the issue of "the falling rate of profit":

This is a "tendency" not a "law". By that I mean (and marx meant) that there is a dynamic within capitalism that causes the rate of profit to decline (not linearly, or autmatically or always). There is a pull in that direction.

But this tendency is off set by other tendencies. Capitalism also tends to rapidly (even explosively) expand the number of proletarians they exploit (by converting semi-feudal regions of the world to capitalist ones, by absorbing the industries and factories of their rivals, by waging world war and forcing a redivision of spheres of influence).

This dynamic pressed capitalists to relentlessly and ceaselessly hunt the planet for more people to exploit and ensnare. The *tendency* of the rate of profit to decline compells the capitalists to pursue offsetting dynamics.

At the same time, each victory they have in expanding their production and profit only creates a more profound basis for deeper and more global crisis.

And so it goes -- capitalism staggers on, like a runner gasping for air but still covering grown.

And so it will go on -- as capitalism dominated and exploits more and more of humanity -- until it is overthrown by real human beings.

There is a long history of "communists" overestimating capitalism's tendency to spiral downward. Many communists thought capitalism after WW2 would plunge back into depression -- and were unprepared for the explosive growth and expansion of western capitalism (energized by the renewed concentration that the defeat of Germany and japan made possible).

so lets be clear: there is only a "tendency" for the rate of profit to decline. It is revolution and real living revolutionary people that will kill capitalism -- it will neither collapse on its own nor simply hand itself (exhausted) to the masses for some easy final blow.

On the issue of Finance Capital

There is some interesting discussion in this thread about finance capital. RAF in particular has said some thought provoking things.

Here are my views:

There is such a thing as finance capital. Its rise is a major feature of the historic transformation of the "competitive capitalism" (of the 19th century) to the imperialist "monopoly capitalism" (of the 20th century).

Lenin discussed this a century ago in his famous book "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism." Its third chapter is (appropriately) called "Finance Capital and the Financial Oligarchy." http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch03.htm

Basically this describes how the commanding heights of capitalism becomes more and more parasitically separated from the details of production. There are less and less often "steel capitalists" or "coal capitalists." The economy becomes dominated by a fusion of banking and corporate capital (called "finance capital" that focuses on the buying and selling of whole corporations -- and sees only the "bottom line" and is not even tied to the fortunes of this or that basic industry.

Lenin wrote: "Finance capital, concentrated in a few hands and exercising a virtual monopoly, exacts enormous and ever-increasing profits from the floating of companies, issue of stock, state loans, etc., strengthens the domination of the financial oligarchy and levies tribute upon the whole of society for the benefit of monopolists."

We are not dogmatists, of course. Just cuz lenin said there was finance capitalism a century ago, doesn't mean it exists now. However, I believe that any analysis of capitalism today will show it has only become more concentrated, more gathered up in vast corporations dominated by even more parasitic "finance capital." This trend analyzed by Lenin has intensified since he described it -- in ways that i suspect even he might not have forseen.